War on terror - 19 years on

[Un Pilier]

Seriously, are there still some people justifying that illegal war of the Yanks in 2003?
The biggest travesty is that all those war criminals are still walking amongst us as free men, Blair included.

No, I don’t think anyone has tried to justify it at all.

[Sandstorm]

I thought at the time, that the war was wrong or at least premature and devoid of any constructive end-game. I am not arguing otherwise. Merely that, at the time, I recall various interpretations of the statements. Indeed iirc people of the anti-war persuasion were dissatisfied Blix hadn’t been more clear there were no wmd. The more hawkish seemed to tend towards the view that the weapons existed but Blix had failed to find them.

The UN report is interesting reading. I won’t paste it all here but it’s discussion is still on the UN website. The following is the first couple of paras.

“Up until they were withdrawn from Iraq on 18 March –- the day before armed action began -- United Nations inspectors had found no evidence of the continuation or resumption of programmes of weapons of mass destruction, Hans Blix told the Security Council this morning, as he briefed them for a final time before stepping down at the end of June as head of the inspection team.


Introducing the thirteenth quarterly report of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), Mr. Blix, the Commission’s Executive Chairman, said significant quantities of proscribed items had also not been found, apart from the Al Samoud 2 missiles, 50 of which had been destroyed under the Commission’s supervision. That did not necessarily mean that such items could not exist. But long lists of items remained unaccounted for and “it is not justified to jump to the conclusion that something exists just because it is unaccounted for”.”

Hawkish? You have to be a prize cnut Leader to read the above and think: “Yup, there’s a certainty there are nukes hidden near Baghdad, send in the troops tomorrow “

[Hugo]

The biggest travesty is that all those war criminals are still walking amongst us as free men, Blair included.

Agreed. Just to rub some salt in the wound, have a guess who has donated £9 million to his globalist non profit foundation. Our good friends Saudi Arabia.

[Un Pilier]

I thought at the time, that the war was wrong or at least premature and devoid of any constructive end-game. I am not arguing otherwise. Merely that, at the time, I recall various interpretations of the statements. Indeed iirc people of the anti-war persuasion were dissatisfied Blix hadn’t been more clear there were no wmd. The more hawkish seemed to tend towards the view that the weapons existed but Blix had failed to find them.

The UN report is interesting reading. I won’t paste it all here but it’s discussion is still on the UN website. The following is the first couple of paras.

“Up until they were withdrawn from Iraq on 18 March –- the day before armed action began -- United Nations inspectors had found no evidence of the continuation or resumption of programmes of weapons of mass destruction, Hans Blix told the Security Council this morning, as he briefed them for a final time before stepping down at the end of June as head of the inspection team.


Introducing the thirteenth quarterly report of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), Mr. Blix, the Commission’s Executive Chairman, said significant quantities of proscribed items had also not been found, apart from the Al Samoud 2 missiles, 50 of which had been destroyed under the Commission’s supervision. That did not necessarily mean that such items could not exist. But long lists of items remained unaccounted for and “it is not justified to jump to the conclusion that something exists just because it is unaccounted for”.”

Hawkish? You have to be a prize cnut Leader to read the above and think: “Yup, there’s a certainty there are nukes hidden near Baghdad, send in the troops tomorrow “

Not Nukes, necessarily, more likely chemical weapons, which Saddam did of course have previous with. Generally, however, I agree with your point.

[Tichtheid]

There is an old article here which is worth a quick read

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/worl ... ?ref=world

[Slick]

I thought at the time, that the war was wrong or at least premature and devoid of any constructive end-game. I am not arguing otherwise. Merely that, at the time, I recall various interpretations of the statements. Indeed iirc people of the anti-war persuasion were dissatisfied Blix hadn’t been more clear there were no wmd. The more hawkish seemed to tend towards the view that the weapons existed but Blix had failed to find them.

The UN report is interesting reading. I won’t paste it all here but it’s discussion is still on the UN website. The following is the first couple of paras.

“Up until they were withdrawn from Iraq on 18 March –- the day before armed action began -- United Nations inspectors had found no evidence of the continuation or resumption of programmes of weapons of mass destruction, Hans Blix told the Security Council this morning, as he briefed them for a final time before stepping down at the end of June as head of the inspection team.


Introducing the thirteenth quarterly report of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), Mr. Blix, the Commission’s Executive Chairman, said significant quantities of proscribed items had also not been found, apart from the Al Samoud 2 missiles, 50 of which had been destroyed under the Commission’s supervision. That did not necessarily mean that such items could not exist. But long lists of items remained unaccounted for and “it is not justified to jump to the conclusion that something exists just because it is unaccounted for”.”

Ahh mate, I’m not interested in a prolonged back and forth on this (I doubt you are either) but your original post was asking if there was really any information at the time that might think they were lying, and that was a big one.

[Fangle]

At that time there wasn’t a single poster on PR who said that there were no WMDs in Iraq. But everyone is so wise looking back.

[Slick]

At that time there wasn’t a single poster on PR who said that there were no WMDs in Iraq. But everyone is so wise looking back.

My memory isn’t the best but I seem to remember an overwhelming majority of posters who said it was bollocks and we shouldn’t be going to war

[Fangle]

At that time there wasn’t a single poster on PR who said that there were no WMDs in Iraq. But everyone is so wise looking back.

My memory isn’t the best but I seem to remember an overwhelming majority of posters who said it was bollocks and we shouldn’t be going to war

Our memories differ. But, maybe I’m wrong, that The Economist thought it the correct action.

[Slick]

At that time there wasn’t a single poster on PR who said that there were no WMDs in Iraq. But everyone is so wise looking back.

My memory isn’t the best but I seem to remember an overwhelming majority of posters who said it was bollocks and we shouldn’t be going to war

Our memories differ. But, maybe I’m wrong, that The Economist thought it the correct action.

Yeah, wasn’t a challenge, just genuinely what I remember

[notfatcat]

War on Terror? u mean a "War by Terrorists" 19 years later and ppl still believe Osama did it....wow talk about disinformation.

Those bloody propaganda wallahs were good though - hell, even Osama believed he did it.

Osama was an 'ally' to the US, he was told if he says he did it, he would get some reward or something later ....only later did he find out he got escapegoated by the US..mind you, not a SINGLE terrorist on those planes that hit the towers were from Al Qaeda, each and everyone of them were from the 2 muslim countries Saudi arabia and UAE, both American allied countries with 3 others from Lebanon and egypt, neither of them were from Afghanistan, iraq, iran or pakistan, the home of al-qaeda......Americans are dumb and can be easily manipulated and confused, we saw it during the 2016 presidential elections, that is why they used the word "muslim terrorists" since 2001 to confuse the Americans cause they didn't know and to this day don't know the difference between a Persian and an arab or an iraqi or iranian.... lol just found out i got banned on facebook for 3 days for pointing out that US killed more refugees than they saved during the height of the Iraq war... which hilariously is another joke, the 2003 attack on Afghanistan was just a way for the US to get into Iraq, the country they "actually" wanted to invade.

This is what happens when you drink fluoridated water in the vicinity of a 5G mast.

[Un Pilier]

I thought at the time, that the war was wrong or at least premature and devoid of any constructive end-game. I am not arguing otherwise. Merely that, at the time, I recall various interpretations of the statements. Indeed iirc people of the anti-war persuasion were dissatisfied Blix hadn’t been more clear there were no wmd. The more hawkish seemed to tend towards the view that the weapons existed but Blix had failed to find them.

The UN report is interesting reading. I won’t paste it all here but it’s discussion is still on the UN website. The following is the first couple of paras.

“Up until they were withdrawn from Iraq on 18 March –- the day before armed action began -- United Nations inspectors had found no evidence of the continuation or resumption of programmes of weapons of mass destruction, Hans Blix told the Security Council this morning, as he briefed them for a final time before stepping down at the end of June as head of the inspection team.


Introducing the thirteenth quarterly report of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), Mr. Blix, the Commission’s Executive Chairman, said significant quantities of proscribed items had also not been found, apart from the Al Samoud 2 missiles, 50 of which had been destroyed under the Commission’s supervision. That did not necessarily mean that such items could not exist. But long lists of items remained unaccounted for and “it is not justified to jump to the conclusion that something exists just because it is unaccounted for”.”

Ahh mate, I’m not interested in a prolonged back and forth on this (I doubt you are either) but your original post was asking if there was really any information at the time that might think they were lying, and that was a big one.

You are right bud, I don’t usually do the back and forth. For the record, I asked what was clear and obvious in response to a suggestion (not yours) that only dopes believed it. As I recall it wasn’t as clear cut as that and so I said so. There would be no point in this place if we didn’t have a few discussions Here’s to wind in your sails

[Slick]

I thought at the time, that the war was wrong or at least premature and devoid of any constructive end-game. I am not arguing otherwise. Merely that, at the time, I recall various interpretations of the statements. Indeed iirc people of the anti-war persuasion were dissatisfied Blix hadn’t been more clear there were no wmd. The more hawkish seemed to tend towards the view that the weapons existed but Blix had failed to find them.

The UN report is interesting reading. I won’t paste it all here but it’s discussion is still on the UN website. The following is the first couple of paras.

“Up until they were withdrawn from Iraq on 18 March –- the day before armed action began -- United Nations inspectors had found no evidence of the continuation or resumption of programmes of weapons of mass destruction, Hans Blix told the Security Council this morning, as he briefed them for a final time before stepping down at the end of June as head of the inspection team.


Introducing the thirteenth quarterly report of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), Mr. Blix, the Commission’s Executive Chairman, said significant quantities of proscribed items had also not been found, apart from the Al Samoud 2 missiles, 50 of which had been destroyed under the Commission’s supervision. That did not necessarily mean that such items could not exist. But long lists of items remained unaccounted for and “it is not justified to jump to the conclusion that something exists just because it is unaccounted for”.”

Ahh mate, I’m not interested in a prolonged back and forth on this (I doubt you are either) but your original post was asking if there was really any information at the time that might think they were lying, and that was a big one.

You are right bud, I don’t usually do the back and forth. For the record, I asked what was clear and obvious in response to a suggestion (not yours) that only dopes believed it. As I recall it wasn’t as clear cut as that and so I said so. There would be no point in this place if we didn’t have a few discussions Here’s to wind in your sails

Top man

Just aware, especially on here, that actual discussion can look more aggressive than intended.

You stupid cunt

[Un Pilier]

Ahh mate, I’m not interested in a prolonged back and forth on this (I doubt you are either) but your original post was asking if there was really any information at the time that might think they were lying, and that was a big one.

You are right bud, I don’t usually do the back and forth. For the record, I asked what was clear and obvious in response to a suggestion (not yours) that only dopes believed it. As I recall it wasn’t as clear cut as that and so I said so. There would be no point in this place if we didn’t have a few discussions Here’s to wind in your sails

Top man

Just aware, especially on here, that actual discussion can look more aggressive than intended.

You stupid cunt

[Uncle fester]

What got me were the dopes who believed the WMD lies that were so clear and obvious even at the time. A lot of the current mistrust in democratic leaders in those countries stems from that flagrant abuse of public trust.

Was it really so clear and obvious that the WMD claims were lies at the time? I’d be interested to know how you would demonstrate that without the benefit of hindsight - ie. just using contemporaneous information available to the average dope.

I assume you're just being funny?

[Jambanja]

War on Terror? u mean a "War by Terrorists" 19 years later and ppl still believe Osama did it....wow talk about disinformation.

Those bloody propaganda wallahs were good though - hell, even Osama believed he did it.

Enz, who was this Stemoc on PR

[Gumboot]

Enz, who was this Stemoc on PR

His new user name is a cunningly disguised version of his old one.

[Enzedder]

Enz, who was this Stemoc on PR

His new user name is a cunningly disguised version of his old one.

He's a bit backward here, isn't he?

[Jambanja]

Enz, who was this Stemoc on PR

His new user name is a cunningly disguised version of his old one.

Ahh, thanks, now I understand the conspiracy stuff

[Un Pilier]

What got me were the dopes who believed the WMD lies that were so clear and obvious even at the time. A lot of the current mistrust in democratic leaders in those countries stems from that flagrant abuse of public trust.

Was it really so clear and obvious that the WMD claims were lies at the time? I’d be interested to know how you would demonstrate that without the benefit of hindsight - ie. just using contemporaneous information available to the average dope.

I assume you're just being funny?

No, if you read the thread you will see why I don’t think it was as obvious as you suggest and the subject is certainly worthy of a serious discussion, which we had. I don’t disagree that the whole thing was appalling and led to a lot of mistrust and ruined reputations.

[Sandstorm]

Was it really so clear and obvious that the WMD claims were lies at the time? I’d be interested to know how you would demonstrate that without the benefit of hindsight - ie. just using contemporaneous information available to the average dope.

I assume you're just being funny?

No, if you read the thread you will see why I don’t think it was as obvious as you suggest and the subject is certainly worthy of a serious discussion, which we had. I don’t disagree that the whole thing was appalling and led to a lot of mistrust and ruined reputations.

But I don’t think I see you calling it a mistake yet?

[Un Pilier]

I assume you're just being funny?

No, if you read the thread you will see why I don’t think it was as obvious as you suggest and the subject is certainly worthy of a serious discussion, which we had. I don’t disagree that the whole thing was appalling and led to a lot of mistrust and ruined reputations.

But I don’t think I see you calling it a mistake yet?

I have clearly stated that even at the time I thought the war was wrong and devoid of any constructive end-game. In the post you quoted I said it was appalling. I’m happy to add mistake but it doesn’t seem a strong enough word.

[Sandstorm]

Fair enough, cheers

[Jimmy Smallsteps]

Geez those photos of the people who jumped are hard to go past. Such courage.

No doubt the logical choice to make with jet fuel burning behind you and all possible ways of escape blocked.

[Fangle]

I assume you're just being funny?

No, if you read the thread you will see why I don’t think it was as obvious as you suggest and the subject is certainly worthy of a serious discussion, which we had. I don’t disagree that the whole thing was appalling and led to a lot of mistrust and ruined reputations.

But I don’t think I see you calling it a mistake yet?

Why are you bullying him?

[Uncle fester]

Was it really so clear and obvious that the WMD claims were lies at the time? I’d be interested to know how you would demonstrate that without the benefit of hindsight - ie. just using contemporaneous information available to the average dope.

I assume you're just being funny?

No, if you read the thread you will see why I don’t think it was as obvious as you suggest and the subject is certainly worthy of a serious discussion, which we had. I don’t disagree that the whole thing was appalling and led to a lot of mistrust and ruined reputations.

Well you could start with the obvious discrepancy between the people who perpetrated 911 and those who Dubya and Blair selected to be recipients of the revenge & regime change cure.

Then, if there was serious evidence of WMD, we'd have heard about it from sources with less of a vested interest in convincing the wider public to go to war.

It was so outrageously transparent that I have difficulty relating to people who swallowed the thing without questioning.

And the cost was grevious because now there's an entire cohort of people who question everything which could yet topple the whole democratic experiment.

[Un Pilier]

I assume you're just being funny?

No, if you read the thread you will see why I don’t think it was as obvious as you suggest and the subject is certainly worthy of a serious discussion, which we had. I don’t disagree that the whole thing was appalling and led to a lot of mistrust and ruined reputations.

Well you could start with the obvious discrepancy between the people who perpetrated 911 and those who Dubya and Blair selected to be recipients of the revenge & regime change cure.

Then, if there was serious evidence of WMD, we'd have heard about it from sources with less of a vested interest in convincing the wider public to go to war.

It was so outrageously transparent that I have difficulty relating to people who swallowed the thing without questioning.

And the cost was grevious because now there's an entire cohort of people who question everything which could yet topple the whole democratic experiment.

Are you suggesting I swallowed the whole thing without questioning? I’m not going to rerun the whole discussion but it seems you may have missed the bits where I said I always thought the war wrong and ill considered? My point has been about what I understand Hans Blix actually said and about my recollections of what a lot of people were saying at the time.

[Uncle fester]

It's a bit of a silly discussion to be having. The evidence behind the justification for the war was preposterous at the time. Powell got laughed out of the UN and countries that did send troops sent the bare minimum so as not to offend the US (bar UK of course).

And sure enough, the evidence being shit was proven after the invasion.

[Lobby]

I agree with Un Pillier. Although there were plenty of reasons to believe the US and UK were exaggerating the threat in their dodgy dossier, at the time there were good reasons for thinking that Iraq still had a secret stash of WMD. We knew Iraq had previously had WMD and had used chemical weapons against Iran as well as against its own population. There was a long history of evasion and obfuscation in its dealings with weapons inspectors, who it had just expelled. It was not unreasonable to believe the expulsion might be because they were about to discover a stash of weapons. The fact was no one knew whether they had WMD or not, and it was only later we learned that Saddam had destroyed most if not all of his WMD, while maintaining the pretence that they still existed.

It should also be remembered that David Kelly, who was the first person to really call into question Blair and Campbell's sexed-up dossier (and later committed suicide when he was outed as the source of the leak), nevertheless was still convinced Iraq had WMD. As he wrote at the time:

"Iraq has spent the past 30 years building up an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Although the current threat presented by Iraq militarily is modest, both in terms of conventional and unconventional weapons, it has never given up its intent to develop and stockpile such weapons for both military and terrorist use.... The long-term threat, however, remains Iraq's development to military maturity of weapons of mass destruction – something that only regime change will avert."

For myself, I thought Iraq probably did have chemical and other WMD, but also thought the level of threat Iraq posed was completely over-stated, and there was no justification for going to war with Iraq. The best option would have been to continue diplomatic efforts to allow the weapons inspectors to return to Iraq, something that Blair and Bush refused to countenance.

[Fangle]

My shaky memory says that all but one of the US senate, including Joe Biden, voted for action.

[Hugo]

My shaky memory says that all but one of the US senate, including Joe Biden, voted for action.

I don't think it was nearly that close to unanimous. The Republicans got the votes they needed to pass the resolution but there were quite a few dems who dissented and of course independent Bernie Sanders.

Edit - vote was 77/23. Sanders was in the House so did not cast a vote in the Senate. I was thinking of his speech in the empty house in 1991 where he opposed the Gulf War. One of his objections was that invading Iraq in 1991 would be used as future justification for war.

[Marylandolorian]

My shaky memory says that all but one of the US senate, including Joe Biden, voted for action.

I think the majority of us knew it was bs, but nobody wanted to be to vocal about this in public, It was the beginning of the fox campaign Red white and blue with DoubleU "if you aren't with us, you are against us".

By the way, the Chinese killed a lot of more people in 2020 than the US since 2003.

[Un Pilier]

It's a bit of a silly discussion to be having. The evidence behind the justification for the war was preposterous at the time. Powell got laughed out of the UN and countries that did send troops sent the bare minimum so as not to offend the US (bar UK of course).

And sure enough, the evidence being shit was proven after the invasion.

Exactly my point ffs.

[.OverThere]

I agree with Un Pillier. Although there were plenty of reasons to believe the US and UK were exaggerating the threat in their dodgy dossier, at the time there were good reasons for thinking that Iraq still had a secret stash of WMD. We knew Iraq had previously had WMD and had used chemical weapons against Iran as well as against its own population. There was a long history of evasion and obfuscation in its dealings with weapons inspectors, who it had just expelled. It was not unreasonable to believe the expulsion might be because they were about to discover a stash of weapons. The fact was no one knew whether they had WMD or not, and it was only later we learned that Saddam had destroyed most if not all of his WMD, while maintaining the pretence that they still existed.

It should also be remembered that David Kelly, who was the first person to really call into question Blair and Campbell's sexed-up dossier (and later committed suicide when he was outed as the source of the leak), neI never did and never will.ertheless was still convinced Iraq had WMD. As he wrote at the time:

"Iraq has spent the past 30 years building up an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Although the current threat presented by Iraq militarily is modest, both in terms of conventional and unconventional weapons, it has never given up its intent to develop and stockpile such weapons for both military and terrorist use.... The long-term threat, however, remains Iraq's development to military maturity of weapons of mass destruction – something that only regime change will avert."

For myself, I thought Iraq probably did have chemical and other WMD, but also thought the level of threat Iraq posed was completely over-stated, and there was no justification for going to war with Iraq. The best option would have been to continue diplomatic efforts to allow the weapons inspectors to return to Iraq, something that Blair and Bush refused to countenance.

All that is total meaningless bollox in connection to being a valid reaction to 9/11.
You bought some type of spin, that in your eyes justified the war on an uninvolved country.
I never did and never will.
America still possesses chemical weapons despite years ago promising to destroy them.

[Lobby]

I agree with Un Pillier. Although there were plenty of reasons to believe the US and UK were exaggerating the threat in their dodgy dossier, at the time there were good reasons for thinking that Iraq still had a secret stash of WMD. We knew Iraq had previously had WMD and had used chemical weapons against Iran as well as against its own population. There was a long history of evasion and obfuscation in its dealings with weapons inspectors, who it had just expelled. It was not unreasonable to believe the expulsion might be because they were about to discover a stash of weapons. The fact was no one knew whether they had WMD or not, and it was only later we learned that Saddam had destroyed most if not all of his WMD, while maintaining the pretence that they still existed.

It should also be remembered that David Kelly, who was the first person to really call into question Blair and Campbell's sexed-up dossier (and later committed suicide when he was outed as the source of the leak), neI never did and never will.ertheless was still convinced Iraq had WMD. As he wrote at the time:

"Iraq has spent the past 30 years building up an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Although the current threat presented by Iraq militarily is modest, both in terms of conventional and unconventional weapons, it has never given up its intent to develop and stockpile such weapons for both military and terrorist use.... The long-term threat, however, remains Iraq's development to military maturity of weapons of mass destruction – something that only regime change will avert."

For myself, I thought Iraq probably did have chemical and other WMD, but also thought the level of threat Iraq posed was completely over-stated, and there was no justification for going to war with Iraq. The best option would have been to continue diplomatic efforts to allow the weapons inspectors to return to Iraq, something that Blair and Bush refused to countenance.

All that is total meaningless bollox in connection to being a valid reaction to 9/11.
You bought some type of spin, that in your eyes justified the war on an uninvolved country.
I never did and never will.
America still possesses chemical weapons despite years ago promising to destroy them.

Could you explain what part of my statement “ there was no justification for going to war with Iraq” leads you to think I thought the war was justified?